Strong business growth is good news, but it doesn’t mean every lender will use your latest, highest figure. A material increase in profit between financial years actually triggers extra scrutiny under several policies, not automatic acceptance of the bigger number.
A worked example
| Year | Adjusted business income |
|---|---|
| FY1 | $80,000 |
| FY2 | $120,000 |
| Movement | +50% |
A 50% increase is genuinely good business news, but it does not automatically mean every lender will use the full $120,000. Depending on the specific policy applied, a lender might use the full latest-year figure (where sustainability is supported), an averaged figure around $100,000, a capped figure somewhere between the two, or ask for current BAS/bank statements before accepting the increase as sustained.
Approaches found across lenders
- Using the latest year in full, where sustainability is supported by current trading evidence
- Requiring a written explanation when growth is material (commonly triggered around 20–50% depending on the policy)
- Capping the usable increase to a set percentage above the prior year
- Comparing current BAS/trading before accepting the latest result
- Still using an average or another conservative method regardless of the growth story
PolicyMatch does not publish one “growth cap” figure as universal, it genuinely varies. What’s consistent is that a material change activates different lender-policy checks, and being ready to explain why your business grew (a new contract, a new service line, market conditions) tends to help.
What to prepare
- Both years’ financials, clearly showing the movement
- Current BAS or recent bank statements showing the growth is holding, not a one-off spike
- A short written explanation of what drove the increase
Next step: run your own figures through the growth scenario in the Scenario Lens‘s Self-employed tab, then talk with KartikKumar about which method your specific figures are likely to be assessed under.